Second look at Rubio 2016?

posted at 3:21 pm on March 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

A contingent on the right will never forgive him for backing a bill offering a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and his critics say he jettisoned the plan strictly to preserve his political standing. But in interviews with numerous GOP leaders and influential conservative activists in early primary states, his new push seems to have won over one-time skeptics who are now more open to a prospective Rubio candidacy…

“I’m sure there are people who are unhappy with what I did on immigration and will never be supportive of me again,” Rubio said in an interview in the Capitol last week. “But by and large, I think if you look at my approval ratings in different metrics that are out there, I feel like many of my supporters maybe disagreed with me on immigration — and disagreed strongly — but they understand that I’ve been involved in other issues that are important for the country.”…

Last week, Rubio got rave reviews from Rush Limbaugh and Iowa activists when the son of Cuban immigrants blasted the Hawkeye State’s veteran Democratic senator, Tom Harkin, in a floor speech over Cuba and Venezuela. Rubio has methodically tried to burnish his foreign policy credentials to carve out a middle ground between the GOP hawks and libertarians in his party, while recently making high-profile swings through Asia and Europe.

In a series of speeches in Washington and in Florida, Rubio is piecing together a domestic policy platform, rolling out proposals to overhaul higher education, such as by allowing the transfer of accredited online courses to traditional colleges, and provide a conservative alternative to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, including a new proposal to implement the earned income tax credit.

Conn Carroll, who maintained his admiration for Rubio even while railing against his amnesty efforts, also thinks it might be time for a second round of Marcomania. The timing for it is perfect: Christie’s faded, Rand Paul’s lying low while foreign policy issues flare up, and Jeb Bush and Scott Walker haven’t tipped their hands yet. It’s only Rubio and Cruz who’ve been in the news lately, and much of Cruz’s coverage is devoted to his battles with Senate colleagues. For the moment, Rubio has the spotlight largely to himself. I told you last summer, even as the backlash to the Gang of Eight bill was raging, that he wasn’t finished as a presidential candidate. For one basic reason: With the possible exception of Cruz, there’s not a single likely Republican nominee who’s appreciably better on immigration than Rubio is. (Read this old post from Mickey Kaus to see why Cruz is only “possibly” better.) You can and should hold it against Rubio that he was decetiful on immigration as a candidate, but I think it’s goofy to believe he’d cave any more comprehensively on the issue as president than Bush or Walker would. In fact, if you’re trying to talk yourself into giving him a second chance, there’s an argument to be made that he’d be marginally better on amnesty than some of his rivals at this point precisely because he took such a beating for it last year. One sellout can be forgiven as a mistake, especially if the House ends up doing nothing on immigration. A second sellout as president would be an irredeemable betrayal.

Needless to say, the weaker Obama seems on foreign policy over the next two years, the more hawks like Rubio will benefit during the primary campaign. It’s an open question to me how much of the new respect for Paul-style non-interventionism expressed by grassroots conservatives over the past few years is based on its merits as an ideology versus how much is simply a reaction to Obama’s interventionist blunders. O escalated in Afghanistan and got a few more years of bloody stalemate and aggravation from Karzai for his trouble. He escalated in Libya and ended up with a murdered ambassador and thousands of weapons from Qaddafi’s arsenal going loose. He wanted to escalate in Syria but eventually backed out once he realized that virtually no one in either party wanted to roll the dice on that one. All of that was good for Paul, who could cite it as further proof that interfering abroad almost always means grief and regret. But the Syria debacle may have been a pyrrhic victory for non-interventionists: By letting a character as loathsome as Putin bail him out with a face-saving disarmament deal, O looked weak, which antagonized hawks. Now he looks weak again, unfairly in the sense that his options are no better than Bush’s were vis-a-vis Georgia in 2008 but even rhetorically with lame spin about “uncontested arrivals” and “lines” that no one takes seriously anymore. The more hapless he seems over the next two years, the more convincing Rubio will sound when warning tea partiers that America needs a hawk as C-in-C, not a non-interventionist. That’s one of the big mysteries that the next primary election will solve: Is the GOP truly trending more dovish or is it simply reliably anti-Obama, irrespective of whether O’s leaning hawkish or dovish at a given moment? Rubio’s going to argue that Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria would have been successful with a more competent interventionist giving the orders. If GOP voters agree, that’s a stark repudiation of Paul’s call for a more “modest” foreign policy.

Either way, I’m looking forward to Paul’s inevitable zinger that if the party wants a guy who supports amnesty and dreams of intervening in every international mess on the map, they might as well nominate McCain again instead of Rubio. Exit question: If Walker and Rubio both run, who wins? I imagine them as competing for the same niche between the loud-and-proud centrists like Bush and Christie and the stalwart tea partiers like Paul and Cruz. Walker has the edge because he’s a governor and of course because of his glorious union-busting victory in Wisconsin, no?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

You’re exactly right. It’s WAY TOO GENEROUS. We’re taking in a million per year and we’ve been doing that for damned near a half century. And what do we get for our generosity? …lower wages, as the labor pool inflates.

The GOP needs to pull its head out of its hindquarters, because here’s the sad little truth. This mushy middle between socialism and capitalism isn’t working. No one expects laissez faire, but we’re about as far from an organic marketplace as we can be at this point. So, if they want to appease the Chamber of Commerce with more low-wage workers, why the hell shouldn’t we go ahead, give Democrats their way, and raise that minimum wage until it smarts???

Since the late 1960s, the Democrats have been dumping about a million low-skilled immigrants on the country every year, driving down wages, especially at the lower end of the spectrum.

According to Harvard economist George Borjas, our immigration policies have reduced American wages by $402 billion a year — while increasing profits for employers by $437 billion a year. (That’s minus what they have to pay to the government in taxes to support their out-of-work former employees. Of course, we’re all forced to share that tax burden.)

Or, as the White House puts it on its website promoting an increase in the minimum wage, “Today, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third since its peak in 1968.”

Why were wages so high until 1968? Because that’s when Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act kicked in, bringing in about a million immigrants a year, almost 90 percent of them unskilled workers from the Third World.

Marco Rubio has did an impressive and passionate speech on rejecting Harkin’s bull on Cuba..If he continues to develope his policy chops he could be a player..I don’t know if it is 2016 though..He has a very good style in the way he sells the GOP message..:)

Dire Straits on March 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Well, he truly does have a very believable shtick, doesn’t he? Certainly Florida voters bought into it when they elected him. Only problem was… he LIED to them.

And yeah, that was a pretty cool “take-down” of Harkin. But think about it… has any fruit ever hung so low? It’s not like it takes vast reservoirs of political courage to confront a nutter like Harkin when the subject is Communist Cuba.

Marco Rubio has did an impressive and passionate speech on rejecting Harkin’s bull on Cuba..If he continues to develope his policy chops he could be a player..I don’t know if it is 2016 though..He has a very good style in the way he sells the GOP message..:)

Dire Straits on March 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Well, he truly does have a very believable shtick, doesn’t he? Certainly Florida voters bought into it when they elected him. Only problem was… he LIED to them.

And yeah, that was a pretty cool “take-down” of Harkin. But think about it… has any fruit ever hung so low? It’s not like it takes vast reservoirs of political courage to confront a nutter like Harkin when the subject is Communist Cuba.

Murf76 on March 3, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Right on. Cuba take down or 40 million uneducated, socialist invaders? He has his priorities all out of whack.
Still f u no!

Rubio “teamed” with the wrong folks on immigration bill (Schumer)..Plus it was a very bad bill..Rubio has a remarkable ability to get his points across to the folks..It just has that “it” to it..He can “sell it”..imho..:)

Rubio “teamed” with the wrong folks on immigration bill (Schumer)..Plus it was a very bad bill..Rubio has a remarkable ability to get his points across to the folks..It just has that “it” to it..He can “sell it”..imho..:)

Dire Straits on March 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM

It was a very very very bad bill. And he pitched it and lied about it for months.

I agree that Rubio is gifted. It’s a tragedy that he lied so much. He lied when the truth was there for everyone to see. He lied before(during his election) and after the gang of 8 bill was making the rounds. I can’t imagine anyone but a LIV taking him seriously again. WHat other pol has lied that much and then been embraced latter in his political career? If Charlie Crist wins then there is that. Who else? Hillary Clinton maybe. Can you name another? Rubio is in rare company.

HillC Liver Spot on March 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM
and
mollymack on March 3, 2014 at 8:29 PM

That’s just it, isn’t it?… priorities and character. And while Rubio and the GOP put on a good show at election time, it’s a different story after they win.

I’ve spent YEARS arguing back to the “third party” crowd that it’s simply not true that Republicans and Democrats are “the same”. But the joke’s on me, right? Because there’s NOTHING that illustrates the truth better than pro-amnesty policy. It’s not about priorities or about character. It’s about POLITICAL PANDERING.

And we see that clearly because, as a nation, it’s not in our best interest to legalize 30 million border/visa jumpers. The only people being served here are politicians wanting campaign contributions and/or votes.

So, what’s the real difference between the Republican who casts his vote at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce’s craving for cheap labor or the Democrat who casts his vote for identity politics? It’s still the SAME VOTE, and neither rendered for the sake of the nation’s best interest.

The GOP better tread carefully here. I don’t think they’re paying the appropriate amount of attention to what this issue really says about them. If we don’t believe a Democrat’s motives for abandoning the Rule of Law, why the hell do they think we’ll believe them when they do the same?

Rubio “teamed” with the wrong folks on immigration bill (Schumer)..Plus it was a very bad bill..Rubio has a remarkable ability to get his points across to the folks..It just has that “it” to it..He can “sell it”..imho..:)

Dire Straits on March 3, 2014 at 8:36 PM

He can try. But there’s really NO EXCUSE for his reversal. Either he got played by Schumer, which makes him too naive and stupid to be qualified for the job… or he lied about his position all along. Like I said earlier, I’m NEVER going to vote for another pro-amnesty Republican, so it really doesn’t make any difference to me which it is.

Sure. But he kept pretending that legalization would happen after supposed border security provisions. He pushed much harder then even Schumer for immediate mass legalization. Also, he ran against any form of “amnesty” in the Crist election so … Anyway, he recently walked it all back. And it’s academic now … He might not even win his senate seat let alone run for president. And yes, if it wasn’t for his lies I would agree with you that he would have been a great prospect. He can sell “it”. It’s a shame.

Rubio is Cuban, not Mexican. If you are going to promote stereotypes, at least get the nationality right.
(BTW, Cinco de Mayo isn’t celebrated in Mexico; it is an Americanized drinking holiday.)
Illinidiva on March 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM
LOL! Right on!
terryannonline on March 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM

And here I thought Rubio was American and referencing an American drinking holiday w po us be perfectly apt. But since you feel you’re one of our betters, you must know more and speak for the rest of us.

I’ve never believed in a third party because we have idiots on our side too, but I do believe in burning the ticks off and taking the butt kicking leg back.

HillC Liver Spot on March 3, 2014 at 8:52 PM

That’s been my position as well. But, if Allah’s right and all we’re going to see is a pro-amnesty Republican pitted against a pro-amnesty Democrat… I’m voting third party or abstaining this time.

It’s not a half-loaf when we’re talking about legalizing 30 million border/visa jumpers, and that’s BEFORE the chain migration we’ll see hand in hand with it. They keep telling us it’s eleven million, but Reagan’s amnesty was TRIPLE the amount of applicants expected. If that pattern holds we’re talking 33 million, and if each only brings one additional person… 66 million. Does anyone think it’ll just be one extra? I know I don’t.

I think we could easily be talking about 100 million over the next decade. That’s an increase in our population of almost a quarter… and that’s while we’re suffering high unemployment and low wages, while we can’t support the social welfare system we’ve already got in place. And of course, when we look at where these new immigrants are coming from, they’re mostly from socialist countries and mostly proponents of a strong welfare state.

No. This is the straw that breaks my camel’s back. Because it’s NOT about what’s in the best interest of the country. It’s about what’s in the best interest of pandering politicians. We’re already 17 trillion in debt. We’re already looking at a future in which most of us don’t believe our children will do better than we did.

If the GOP wants to act like a bunch of socialist Democrats… I’m ready to treat them as such at the polls. These people need to dig deep, find a pair, and give us candidates we can vote for.

The fact that he blatantly told a 180 degree lie – a series of lies that redeems Bill Clinton by comparison – is not the real problem.

The fact that he’s pro-amnesty is not the real problem, not when you compare him to the rest of the GOP.

The real problem is that he’s un-presidential. He has no spine and no principles besides his own advancement. The way he waffled and caved in his very first controversy, going from The Gatekeeper to begging Democrats to pass anything they wanted, anything at all, even though he actually held all the cards, illustrated his lack of character.

I said it when he was elected (albeit with a question mark, not an exclamation point) and I’ll say it now: the only political belief Marco Rubio has is how swell it is that the humble son of a Cuban yada yada yada can rise to such a high position.

I’m not a one issue person. I’m going to see if he learns anything with this misstep.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Like I said, this is an issue which changes the landscape. It takes almost everything that we value about Republicanism off the table. There’s no hope of returning to a more organic marketplace, no way to trim back the welfare state, no hope for limiting the size and scope of government. If you increase the population by a quarter and they’re all voting socialist… there’s no coming back from that.

This isn’t “one” issue. It’s THE issue. Because it’s going to end up defining the nation going forward.

Everything changes the landscape. I have this running theory that in reality neither side wants to do anything about illegals. Dems let them vote anyway and Republican donors cronies use them for cheap labor. It’s all talk. The whole discussion would change if they did one thing, control the border. And they won’t.

I think so but I am going to be kind of hard on both him and Cruz. Both need to be senators, then quit and go home and be governors of their respective states. Then we will talk about POTUS. No more amateur hour presidents. If they could run a business in there somewhere, that would be cool also.

As long and as hard as I’ve defended against it, that sounds like an excellent opportunity for a third party candidate.

I kept hoping that the GOP would reform itself.. you know, the whole “work from the inside” argument. But time’s up. If they can’t differentiate themselves from Democrats now, after 5 years of Barack Obama, if they’re not willing to uphold the Rule of Law, after every insult we’ve seen from this administration… then those third party guys were right all along… they’re all “the same”.

I hear ya. I get the same way. I was listening to Mark Levin the other night on they way home from work and was surprised that he wasn’t pushing that. He wants people changed in the primaries but if that doesn’t work, he’s voting GOP. We need to be as visible and vocal as we were in the beginning of the Tea Party but people have jobs and lives, they don’t have time for that. I sure did enjoy annoying everyone.

I hear ya. I get the same way. I was listening to Mark Levin the other night on they way home from work and was surprised that he wasn’t pushing that. He wants people changed in the primaries but if that doesn’t work, he’s voting GOP. We need to be as visible and vocal as we were in the beginning of the Tea Party but people have jobs and lives, they don’t have time for that. I sure did enjoy annoying everyone.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2014 at 10:15 PM

Me too… re: the Tea Party. What annoys me is people like Rubio, who rode that wave in and then went turn-coat. I think it’s important to let these people know early on that we want better quality candidates.

I really have reached the point at which I will NOT vote for another pro-amnesty Republican. Like so many of us, I’ve turned a blind eye again and again because I couldn’t bear the thought of not opposing the socialist Dem on the ballot. But no more. If we’re going over that cliff, let a REAL Democrat take the blame for it. It hardly makes a difference when one is mangled at the bottom, but hey… it makes me feel better to know I didn’t endorse the trip.

If you listen to the talking heads, that bi-partisan crap is what the people want. I think Rubio fell for that and the boys club aspect of the Senate, hook, line and sinker. I think he got burned pretty good for it. Since nothing ever came of it, I’m chalking it up to a rookie mistake but I’m keeping my eye on him and I email him quite often.

Because some of us are old and remember when Pres. Reagan gave blanket amnesty on the pretense that it would be a one time deal. Suckers!!!!! I wonder how many times Congress has voted to secure the borders than didn’t bother to fund it? Or cut the funding in budget negotiations. The fact remains that it hasn’t been done. So when someone lies to you over and over, do you just get over it?

Because some of us are old and remember when Pres. Reagan gave blanket amnesty on the pretense that it would be a one time deal. Suckers!!!!! I wonder how many times Congress has voted to secure the borders than didn’t bother to fund it? Or cut the funding in budget negotiations. The fact remains that it hasn’t been done. So when someone lies to you over and over, do you just get over it?

For one basic reason: With the possible exception of Cruz, there’s not a single likely Republican nominee who’s appreciably better on immigration than Rubio is.

Mostly true.

You can and should hold it against Rubio that he was decetiful on immigration as a candidate, but I think it’s goofy to believe he’d cave any more comprehensively on the issue as president than Bush or Walker would.

You can have your opinion, AP, but until Walker’s lied through his teeth like Rubio, it’s just a wild guess. Walker has clearly stated his opposition to the amnesty bill that Rubio supposedly helped write. So where is the equivalence in that?

I’m not a one issue person. I’m going to see if he learns anything with this misstep.

Cindy Munford on March 3, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Some issues are more important than others. Although it will be difficult, ObamaCare can be undone. Amnesty, which will likely mean 60 million uneducated, unskilled aliens over 20 years (illegals plus relatives they sponsor) can never be undone.

Well, our entitlements are already overburdened, I doubt that adding more people to collect is going to be helpful. Then there is the little problem of employing the work age folks in a down economy with a drastically cut military no longer supply jobs for our current population. It may not be one issue hill to die on but there are a lot of consequences.

Lord knows I appreciate people who try to find the good in others, but at best, you appear to be hoping that the guy is just gullible. I’m really hoping the GOP will offer us a better quality candidate than that in 2016.

It seems to me that rudeness might be the least of my worries when dealing with a politician who ran for the Senate by swinging wide right of an incumbent in his own party on the specific issue of illegal immigrants, then joined a group of scummy RINOs in league with the sleaziest of liberal Democrats – Schumer and Gutierrez – to develop an amnesty plan.

Can you all explain to me why immigration is a single issue voting issue for some of you all? I don’t get.

terryannonline on March 3, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Studies show that illegal aliens who received amnesty sponsored an average of five relatives. If there are only 11 million illegals, we are talking about 66 million largely uneducated, unskilled people who by and large do not speak English and are semi-literate in there own language.

How does adding 66 million uneducated, unskilled people benefit the United States? Not how does it help the Democratic Party (votes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporatists (cheap labor and depressed wages) or the Mexican government (the ruling Castilian class draining the swamp and exporting its non-productive people to the United States) or the Catholic Church (more members). How does it benefit the United States?

How does adding 66 million uneducated, unskilled people benefit the United States? Not how does it help the Democratic Party (votes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporatists (cheap labor and depressed wages) or the Mexican government (the ruling Castilian class draining the swamp and exporting its non-productive people to the United States) or the Catholic Church (more members). How does it benefit the United States?

bw222 on March 3, 2014 at 11:24 PM

I call BS on your statistics. Where did you get those number? Numbers USA?

Rubio called Putin a large, deceiver, and he said he cold not and should not ever be trusted again. ROFLOL…Dude, you just described OBAMA & at least half of the politicians in our country…including YOU!

If their illegal alien parents weren’t here we wouldn’t have to support them. And, like many multi-generational welfare families in the inner cities, their children and grandchildren will likely be on welfare too.

53% of all Hispanic births in the U.S. are to single mothers (source U.S. Census). 34% of all federal prisoners are Hispanic (Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons). 33% of Hispanic women had abortions in New York City compared to 12% of non-Hispanic white women (source: New York City Hospital Study regarding 2012 Births).

Somebody seems to have forgotten how many didn’t find coming to America through Ellis Island or other legitimate immigration stations and playing by the rules to gratefully earn their citizenship legitimately rather than pimp some sort of RINO – Democrat entitlement game.

The only numbers worse than uneducated Hispanics (in terms of illegitimate births, abortions, welfare and incarceration) are uneducated blacks. Does a country get stronger by importing people well below the norm? Do the Dallas Cowboys get stronger by drafting people who aren’t capable of playing in the NFL?

I am sure you are familiar with Mexico’s immigration laws:
1. Limit immigration to educated professionals
2. Incarceration and deportation for anyone caught in the country illegally
3. Walls and a heavily patrolled southern border to keep uneducated, unskilled aliens out

I am sure you are familiar with Mexico’s immigration laws:
1. Limit immigration to educated professionals
2. Incarceration and deportation for anyone caught in the country illegally
3. Walls and a heavily patrolled southern border to keep uneducated, unskilled aliens out
How do you feel about Mexico’s immigration laws?
bw222 on March 4, 2014 at 12:07 AM

This is true. And many middle class Mexican citizens look down their noses at immigrants from Central America. The truth is that Americans are a lot more tolerant and welcoming of immigrants from across their southern border than Mexicans are.

Yet we have the Mexican government working to facilitate a significant portion of their country’s poor, unskilled population into ours.

How about having people who have lived in the US for years and some even decades and are now part of our society……actually being granted citizenship so they can be with family?
terryannonline on March 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM

Never. Illegal aliens should never be given citizenship. To do so would be totally unfair and contrary to the rule of law. Those are not the kind of people I want in my country. We have a right to a secure border and to be able to determine who we let in and who we do not.

I know what mass, unchecked illegal immigration results in, and it’s not pretty. It drags us down, doesn’t lift us up. I’d rather not have more of United States resembling a second world country, if you don’t mind.

We should be letting in the best and the brightest from around the world, not letting another country dump its poor, unskilled population on us.

Yet we have the Mexican government working to facilitate a significant portion of their country’s poor, unskilled population into ours.

bluegill on March 4, 2014 at 12:23 AM

The Mexican government pushing its least educated and least skilled people to come to the U.S. would be like us encouraging the residents of Detroit, Cleveland, Camden, Newark, St. Louis and the west and south sides of Chicago to cross the border into Canada so they could get more freebees.

How about having people who have lived in the US for years and some even decades and are now part of our society……actually being granted citizenship so they can be with family?

terryannonline on March 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM

That’s EXACTLY the melodramatic non-answer we’ve all become accustomed to when we ask of what benefit to the United States another amnesty would be.

The fact is… there is none. We’re 17 trillion in debt, wages are stagnant, unemployment is high, and we can no longer expect our children to enjoy more success than we did. Our social safety net is ALREADY unsustainable, and you people want to further burden it by adding what might amount to a 25% increase in our population over the next decade, and this comprised of people who mostly can’t take are of themselves and who will further dilute the labor pool.

Bottom line here is that whenever our politicians can’t give us any better answer than the emotional drivel you just did, they’re NOT doing the jobs they were elected to do. The natural next step for us… would be to STOP electing those kinds of people. Marco Rubio was sent to the Senate to serve the people of the United States of America with specific representative interest in the people of Florida. So, who did he serve instead???

That’s the way I feel about him at this point. I’m certainly open to a Rubio candidacy and, I might add, a Walker, Martinez, Kaish, Jindal, or Pence candidacy. Lets not forget we got a strong gubernatorial bench to choose from.

shubalstearns on March 3, 2014 at 7:33 PM

I like all of the names you dropped here as well. I hope that they run and we get a good set of options this time around.

Rubio is a legislator and should stay in the Senate. Let’s see if he can get anything passed or do anything at all. The only thing he has is the immigration bill, other than that, it’s all speeches. When his name was floated for V.P. in the last election, he started working for the Republican Establishment.

Another term in the Senate? I hope not. We in Florida want to dump him from office, just as we did with Mel Martinez, who co-wrote Bush’s amnesty bill with McCain. Martinez resigned because he knew his name was mud.

Of course Marco is too stupid and arrogant to do that, but we are going to try our best in 2016 to throw the baggage out. We know Marco, and Marco is no American. He’s a treasonous pig.

“Second look” my ding-dong. Although I do admire Sen. Rubio standing with Sen. Cruz during the Obamacare “filibuster” (although it was not technically a filibuster), he still reeks of inexperience and inconsistency with his policy stances (remember his gaffe with conservatives when he advocated amnesty?). Not to mention his grabbing a water bottle right in the middle of a Republican rebuttal speech carried before a national audience (couldn’t he wait until the danged thing was over??).

No, Sen. Rubio is not and never has been the answer. Our only hope to carry the banner for the GOP in the upcoming Presidential election is Sen. Cruz (and I pray he decides to run).

NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE, on our side of the aisle can articulate their ideas and hold their own in a debate like Sen. Cruz. If we have any hope of recapturing the White House, it’s with Sen. Cruz.